A very good piece of advice given was:
"Define your governance before you make any significant
decisions. Otherwise those decisions will come from the early
volunteers instead of from the accepted governing body.
This is a very important point and one I’ve been struggling to
We have a bit of a problem in that we’re bootstrapping from an
existing shallow pool of GNU maintainers (and contributors), so
we’re inheriting the diversity imbalance currently present in GNU.
The infiltration problem also needs to be addressed; the solution
proposed by Ludo (to temporarily exclude those that are not
“official” GNU maintainers from voting on foundational matters, or
to restrict potential members to “long-term” “contributors”, where
each of these terms need to be defined) would make that pool even
shallower. This may be a cost we need to pay to avoid
unsustainable growth at a time when we don’t have processes needed
to keep it from eventually becoming a clone of gnu-misc-discuss.